Posted by therewas47 on 10/27/2012 1:34:00 PM (view original):I can understand that billyg. People would think I have an alcohol problem if they only witnessed me during UK football games but it's the only way to make it through all 4 quarters.

I'm all for term limits on the house and senate. I don't think the founders envisioned career politicians like we have today. I wish we could throw all of the bums out of office and start over. I am voting for Romney though because I don't think this country can stand adding more debt. If you look at how much our country has declined in the last 4 years it is scary. I wish a 3rd party would start too. I think the government is WAY too big. So much of what it does, it was never intended to do. For example, one of the stimulus projects was spending $100,000 (may have been a million) to construct a tunnel for turtles to go under a highway in Florida. The senate has not passed a budget in over 3 years, which they are required to do by law. It's out of control. I think at least Romney will have some inclination to bring the budget into balance, since he has done it in the past in private business. I definitely do not want to see more of what we have had for the last 4 years, or the eight years before it. Bush spent way too much too, but Obama has put the spending on steroids. Seeing the US credit rating decline was a big wake up call. We just can't continue down this path.

Posted by caesari on 10/27/2012 3:05:00 AM (view original):It may be radical, and I wouldn't say I'm advocating it, however, the United States was formed based on John Locke's Social Contract Theory. In layman's terms, Locke states that if a government violates the rights given to it by the people, the people have a right to abolish it and start a new government.

I think that may be extreme at this point, however, I think the only way to stop us from spinning out of control is to STOP CAREER POLITICIANS. When your main goal is to be reelected, you aren't doing your job. If we could put term limits on Senate and House seats, we could make politicians concentrate on governing, not reelection.

Of course, the people that would need to make this decision are the same ones who are making political careers.

indeed.. thats why i get so hopeless this time every 4 years... its the greedy, corrupt career politicians who we need to try to break up the party power complexes and the government power complexes, to get things back to being run in the interests of the people. i totally support limiting congressional terms and that ****, and reducing government spending and power, but with the power hungry bastards being the only ones who can do it, it seems like we have a better chance of pigs learning to fly. maybe if americans would really get into this ****, we'd have a fighting chance, but as long as most people dont really care and stay out of politics, except maybe to vote for the guy they'd rather have a beer with, i think we are screwed.

I can't say I'd like to have a beer with anyone in power right now.... Unless I was allowed to bash heads with the empty beer bottle.

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/27/2012 1:49:00 PM (view original):I'm all for term limits on the house and senate. I don't think the founders envisioned career politicians like we have today. I wish we could throw all of the bums out of office and start over. I am voting for Romney though because I don't think this country can stand adding more debt. If you look at how much our country has declined in the last 4 years it is scary. I wish a 3rd party would start too. I think the government is WAY too big. So much of what it does, it was never intended to do. For example, one of the stimulus projects was spending $100,000 (may have been a million) to construct a tunnel for turtles to go under a highway in Florida. The senate has not passed a budget in over 3 years, which they are required to do by law. It's out of control. I think at least Romney will have some inclination to bring the budget into balance, since he has done it in the past in private business. I definitely do not want to see more of what we have had for the last 4 years, or the eight years before it. Bush spent way too much too, but Obama has put the spending on steroids. Seeing the US credit rating decline was a big wake up call. We just can't continue down this path.

i agree man, im scared of obama. but, i do want to encourage you to look into one thing. government spending under obama really HAS NOT went up as much as people think. the deficit has skyrocket, yes - but its so much to do with less money coming in. i am not even slightly an advocate for obama, he has totally not lived up to his promise of being "different" - he plays politics just as bad as the rest of em. but, i do think its important to be fair in the criticisms, and the republicans really try to push him as the big spender, and romney as the fiscally responsible guy, and im just not buying what they are selling (i dont buy what obama is selling either, for what its worth). romney is backed by the same big business/social elite backed republican party machine as bush/cheney, and bush is probably the BIGGEST offender to fiscal conservatives in 30 years, including obama. i just dont believe romney is going to be that different - thats why ive finally decided the only thing i can do this election is hope romney loses (a very unfortunate side effect being obama winning), because the only fiscal conservatives in the country are fighting to take back the republican party, and the republican establishment just keeps shitting on them - i mean who do they hate more than ron paul? well, obama, obviously - but i mean within their party. i think losing to obama again might force them to, you know, listen... and if fiscal conservatives could take over EITHER party, id be all over that ****. but i dont think there is a democratic equivalent to the libertarian movement within the republican party.

check that out - its a graph of debt increase by president in the last 30 years. obviously, its a little misleading, because some of those guys had 8 years, some 4, and obama is only counted for like 3. but it has been rated by snopes as accurate (albeit somewhat misleading), and there is something to take away there. id vote republican if they were fiscally conservative, but in the last 30 years, they are worse than the democrats (which is scary, given the democrats. the only guy who even came close to being fiscally conservative was clinton, who did more to reform welfare and scale back social programs than probably every other president on that list put together. however, he also got lucky, to preside over the internet boom - but you have to give him props for not taking all that extra money, and spending it - instead putting out balanced budgets i think 4 of his 8 years, with at least a surplus or two). anyway, obama of course has increased the deficit pretty much per year - but he also got a huge deficit and the worst economic crisis since the great depression. thats at least a half-way decent excuse - id vote him out still, if the other guy didn't seem likely to follow the bush path, and bush has worse numbers than obama without nearly as good an excuse.

anyway, this one is a little more important, although its still skewed. its a good thing they call that an opinion piece because its definitely not fact, and there is some dodgy work with the assignment of stimulus packages and the 2008 budget. but the fact you can even make such an argument says something. to me, what it really says is the fiscal policies under GW were a mess - some of the highest spending increases, combined with tax cuts, its no WONDER he towers on that debt increase list (except reagan, but GDP really went up under him too, his debt to gdp numbers are better). and GW got a basically balanced budget from clinton. obama got a huge deficit and the income dropped out under him - i agree, hes bad, but the fiscal policies under bush are about as bad as i have ever seen - and i just dont think romney is different enough. otherwise, why would he propose ANOTHER 5 trillion dollar tax cut, most of which goes to the wealthy? only about 1 trillion will to go families making 200K or less a year (which is a lot), and some goes to businesses, but the lion's share goes to the wealthy, and that just does not make sense to me when you consider how big our deficit is already. also, im afraid of a candidate that people spent teh entire primary trying NOT to nominate, while the same party machine that gave us Bush pushed Romney the whole way. again, i dont disagree with you re: obama in general, but i think its only fair to point out he hasnt increased spending on steroids like the republicans paint him to do - that would be G W bush, my least favorite president of all time (which is a shame, i respect his dad quite a bit). well, i dont know, if i lived longer id probably say its jimmy carter, but having lived through GW, i have to give it to him. with a * that says, wow, jimmy carter could even be worse, but its too scary to think of an even worse president regarding the economy, so i try not to look.

Posted by lmschwarz on 10/27/2012 8:03:00 PM (view original):To combine both the original thread idea and the political one ... perhaps seble is really an alias for Gov Romney and that's the reason we haven't heard from him.

uh oh, dont think you want to rouse that hornets nest!! if we never hear from lmschwarz again, we know the republicans had him killed :(

Nice to see people having the same or similar view on politics that I do. When you turn on the TV all you hear is from the idiots on the far left or far right when in reality most people aren't that way at all. How this thread turned political is amusing but in a good way for once!

Posted by caesari on 10/27/2012 3:05:00 AM (view original):It may be radical, and I wouldn't say I'm advocating it, however, the United States was formed based on John Locke's Social Contract Theory. In layman's terms, Locke states that if a government violates the rights given to it by the people, the people have a right to abolish it and start a new government.

I think that may be extreme at this point, however, I think the only way to stop us from spinning out of control is to STOP CAREER POLITICIANS. When your main goal is to be reelected, you aren't doing your job. If we could put term limits on Senate and House seats, we could make politicians concentrate on governing, not reelection.

Of course, the people that would need to make this decision are the same ones who are making political careers.

Posted by creilmann on 10/29/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):You can switch your vote between Dem and GOP all you want, but you'll likely still be just as disappointed. Real change will not happen with a two party system. There are other options....

My thoughts- I feel like I may as well not vote for them than vote for them. It almost isn't like they count.

I know they do, however, they will win such a small margin of the vote, and there is so little press on them I've only heard of 2 of them. And they are PRESIDENTIAL candidates!! They should be invited to the debates at least.

However, I'd rather cast a vote for Romney, because I know that is the guy I'd rather have win of the two who "have a shot." Does that reasoning make sense?

Posted by creilmann on 10/29/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):You can switch your vote between Dem and GOP all you want, but you'll likely still be just as disappointed. Real change will not happen with a two party system. There are other options....

problem is, none have a chance in hell. man, i really wish ross perot one. now, i dont really know anything about him except he was a successful business man, and he wanted to simplify the tax code, whatever the hell that means ;) but having a viable 3rd party, i believe, would beget a viable 4th party, and who knows, maybe more. i mean, i think of it like this - there are two MAJOR arenas, at least - fiscal policy, and social party. if you are fiscally conservative, right now, you have no party. but say 2 parties cropped up - both fiscally conservative. one socially conservative, one socially liberal. there would be room for both + dems + rep... ubs?... anyway, seems like you should at least have those 4 combos (of fiscally/social conservative/liberal). and maybe more, because foreign policy i could see different views - expansionist, i dont know the world, stay-the-hell-at-homeist? im not sure we need EIGHT parties (all 8 combos) but it would beat the hell out of 2, and i suspect not all 8 combos are really viable. i do think the dem/rep parties would be a lot different though, to have to find their place in the new climate - which would be awesome.

anyway, any means by which the 2 parties can no longer fight a war of attrition, and in which a campaign of negativity cannot possibly win, i am all for. hopefully republicans and democrats can agree on that - now if only we can get our "leaders" to do so, too! im sure, as someone mentioned about the far left/right people on the media, that some % of the people in america are really like the media (which i suspect is influences by the political parties) portray. and i suspect some % of the people actually LOVE one of the poltiical parties (funny thing - how many people you think love both? 5 people, all of whom are severely skitsofrenic? if these parties were good, it would be a non zero number - but i really doubt thats the case). but i think most people, even those who really support 1 party over the other, are less than thrilled. anyone who believes in the free market and the value of competition can see why we are in such ****** shape - get some competition in there!